• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

vesper said:
It's been pretty much proven that those who went after people who do not perform services in their professions in the wedding industry were being targeted by gay marriage activists. And they are just fine with forcing someone to make them a cake or haul them to court. Between these escapades of gay marriage activists hauling photographers/bakers/florists/ caterers into court for refusing to do said services due to religious convictions, state laws on religious freedom had to better protect those people of faith. It wasn't just the wedding industry but how this administration passed a law that discriminated against charities and businesses over certain things that violated their beliefs in Obamacare.

The guy in the video targeted gay bakers asking for an anti-gay cake and recorded their responses on a video. He did not file charges against any of the gay bakers for discrimination but he sure revealed the hypocrisy.

Guess all the hoopla over Pence's bill didn't stop Arkansas from passing one almost identical today.
Click to expand...

Thats what the left does-they shop for targets to sue.
 
vesper said:
I believe 3 out of all the bakeries he spoke with offered to bake a cake but not decorate it with the words "Gay Marriage is Wrong". They just outright refused and found it offensive. But you seem to miss the irony completely. The one asking for the cake doesn't see the phrase "Gay Marriage is Wrong" to be offensive as it is part of his religious beliefs that traditional marriage is holy matrimony and some faiths believe it to be one of the sacraments. He was denied a service over his religious beliefs. Yet a person whose moral conscience doesn't want to do gay wedding cakes is forced to under fear of jail, fines etc.

While surfing the web today, I discovered there are lawsuits against gay bakers who refused to provide a cake that did not support gay marriage.

One such case was an order for an open Bible with this symbol placed on the cake.

no-gay-marriage.png


The gay baker refused to do it. Now there are cases in our court system of gay bakers being sued for denying a cake with a Scripture pertaining to sexual sin or symbolism

You see, I think the gay baker has the right to deny a service that offends them. But I also believe those of religious convictions where gay marriage is an abomination to their faith should not be forced to create something for a person that they find offensive.
Click to expand...


Why is ok in your eyes for a bigot to refuse to serve a black person in his restaurant because black people "offend him"?
 
US Conservative said:
No spin, in the video, gay bakers denied the cake to people of a different sexuality, because they dont agree with their view of marriage.
And again, if an anti-gay marriage baker does not make gay wedding cakes for anyone whats the problem?
Click to expand...

He never presented his sexuality to them either. Nor did they say "we won't bake you that cake because you are straight". No one ever said anything like that.

Again, they did not request a "gay wedding cake". They requested a "wedding cake", a product that the bakers did sell. They did not even get to the point, with either instance, where a design of the cake was even brought up. The one couple knew they wanted a design the baker made, the mother said this. The bakery made wedding cakes, and that is what they requested.
 
vesper said:
It's been pretty much proven that those who went after people who do not perform services in their professions in the wedding industry were being targeted by gay marriage activists. And they are just fine with forcing someone to make them a cake or haul them to court. Between these escapades of gay marriage activists hauling photographers/bakers/florists/ caterers into court for refusing to do said services due to religious convictions, state laws on religious freedom had to better protect those people of faith. It wasn't just the wedding industry but how this administration passed a law that discriminated against charities and businesses over certain things that violated their beliefs in Obamacare.

The guy in the video targeted gay bakers asking for an anti-gay cake and recorded their responses on a video. He did not file charges against any of the gay bakers for discrimination but he sure revealed the hypocrisy.

Guess all the hoopla over Pence's bill didn't stop Arkansas from passing one almost identical today.
Click to expand...

Prove that either of those couples who were denied service by either Sweet Cakes or Masterpiece targeted those bakeries, knowing that they would be refused service. Evidence to support this claim.
 
roguenuke said:
He never presented his sexuality to them either. Nor did they say "we won't bake you that cake because you are straight". No one ever said anything like that.

Again, they did not request a "gay wedding cake". They requested a "wedding cake", a product that the bakers did sell. They did not even get to the point, with either instance, where a design of the cake was even brought up. The one couple knew they wanted a design the baker made, the mother said this. The bakery made wedding cakes, and that is what they requested.
Click to expand...

You are grasping at straw yet again. This was discrimination, based on the views of someone because of their view on gay marriage.
We both know this, but you defend it.
 
US Conservative said:
Thats what the left does-they shop for targets to sue.
Click to expand...

Oh puh-lease....at least get your facts straight. In the Colorado bakery case, the men had been long-time customers of the store. They didn't seek the store out as a target to sue. They assumed that as long-time customers they would be treated with the same respect that the baker gave to all their customers. They were shocked when the bigot refused to make the cake for them. They weren't asking for anything offensive to be placed on the cake....just the same cake that they offered to the public.

In essence...the baker was akin to the white restaurant owner: You can have the soup and sit in the back...but you can't order the things off the menu that I only serve to whites.
 
beefheart said:
So, a store could decide not to sell to blacks, or christians or disabled or vets?
Click to expand...

It's hard to believe, but these Neanderthals actually believe that. No right is more sacred to them than property rights.
 
disneydude said:
Oh puh-lease....at least get your facts straight. In the Colorado bakery case, the men had been long-time customers of the store. They didn't seek the store out as a target to sue. They assumed that as long-time customers they would be treated with the same respect that the baker gave to all their customers. They were shocked when the bigot refused to make the cake for them. They weren't asking for anything offensive to be placed on the cake....just the same cake that they offered to the public.

In essence...the baker was akin to the white restaurant owner: You can have the soup and sit in the back...but you can't order the things off the menu that I only serve to whites.
Click to expand...

They look for the most compelling case, often setting things up. Im reminded of the Fluck case. Make no mistake the ACLU and other lefty groups are out there looking for this type of thing every day, seeking to find cases that will make it to the supreme court.
 
US Conservative said:
You are just making excuses here. The hypocrisy here is stunning.

BTW all the bill does is protect the business from a lawsuit, if they have a conviction to not sell to gays, I say fine (its a private business), however they will likely suffer for holding that view.
Click to expand...

They should not be protected from a lawsuit at all. Their religious views are their personal choice. They are no different than a person who thinks women should never handle money because they are likely to spend it or a black person is always going to try to steal something so they don't deserve service. Doesn't matter where the beliefs originate, a person still chooses to hold those beliefs.

And there is no "hypocrisy" here. The situations are not similar, let alone the same. No one is being illegally discriminated against by being denied a request to write something hateful on a cake, something the baker does not wish to write on the cake. That was the reason for the denial of service, unlike the other cases, where denial of service was admitted to being because the people requesting service were of the same sex, were gay.
 
vesper said:
He made it perfectly clear that the cake was for an upcoming celebration of traditional marriage. The bakers who stated they did not do same sex wedding cakes and had never done one before were considered discriminating. You can't have your cake and eat it too!
Click to expand...
That won't stop them from trying
 
roguenuke said:
They should not be protected from a lawsuit at all. Their religious views are their personal choice. They are no different than a person who thinks women should never handle money because they are likely to spend it or a black person is always going to try to steal something so they don't deserve service. Doesn't matter where the beliefs originate, a person still chooses to hold those beliefs.

And there is no "hypocrisy" here. The situations are not similar, let alone the same. No one is being illegally discriminated against by being denied a request to write something hateful on a cake, something the baker does not wish to write on the cake. That was the reason for the denial of service, unlike the other cases, where denial of service was admitted to being because the people requesting service were of the same sex, were gay.
Click to expand...

How is being against gay marriage hateful? Obama held that view (which was actually more "hateful" than Dick Cheney's) until 2 years ago. :lol:
Or do you think anyone who disagrees is hateful?

Face it you guys will stop at nothing to justify your own views, and dismiss those of others as being hateful and irrational as it suits you-thats all.
 
US Conservative said:
They look for the most compelling case, often setting things up. Im reminded of the Fluck case. Make no mistake the ACLU and other lefty groups are out there looking for this type of thing every day, seeking to find cases that will make it to the supreme court.
Click to expand...

Your evidence of this? Thought so.....pulled from your arse.
 
disneydude said:
Why is ok in your eyes for a bigot to refuse to serve a black person in his restaurant because black people "offend him"?
Click to expand...

Still playing the race card when the gay card isn't working?
Everyone has the right to sue if they find they have been discriminated against. Everyone is suing everyone. First we had the gay marriage activists suing small business owners over their religious convictions. Now we have activists suing gay bakers for denying them an anti-gay cake. We have businesses having to go all the way to the Supremes to keep from having their religious freedoms violated due to Obamacare. There are folks in the medical field suing for the right to not have to perform abortions in hospitals and clinics because it is against their religious conscience. There's a lot of folks engaged in legal battles over religious freedom or any violation to the First Amendment.
 
US Conservative said:
You are grasping at straw yet again. This was discrimination, based on the views of someone because of their view on gay marriage.
We both know this, but you defend it.
Click to expand...

Prove it. You can't. The guy was denied service for the content of the cake. He could have told them all day "I don't approve of gay marriage", then ordered a cookie or cake that had nothing written on it or "happy birthday" or been set up for him to write on it. Instead, he requested a cake that they did not want to make, a cake with writing on it that they deemed "offensive", hateful. There is no protection there for someone to be given a service the person doesn't offer. If they had refused to sell him a cake at all, then he would possibly have a case, depending on how they explained their refusal. However, they didn't do that. And his request is absolutely not the same as someone asking for a cake that the baker does make and being refused because of a protected classification.
 
roguenuke said:
Are you talking about the real cases, at least two in different states, where the same sex couples went to really buy a cake for their same sex marriage/celebration of their marriage, and were denied service once the bakers found out they were a same sex couple wanting a wedding cake?

Oregon ruling really takes the cake -- Christian bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple | Fox News

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Colorado Bakery, Agrees To 'Dog Wedding' Cake Despite Turning Away Gays

No one was being "set up" here. They didn't have to be. The owners openly admitted that not only did they deny service to these couples, at least one of them, if not both, have denied service to same sex couples prior to these incidents. One of the shops closed its storefront business, and now works from home, taking orders online. The other claims to not sell wedding cakes anymore, but still advertises that he does on his website. And there are many comments on Yelp that show that he did in fact discriminate against other couples before this one stood up for themselves and reported him/sued him.
Click to expand...

And that's the goal, to force Christian merchants out of the marketplace
 
US Conservative said:
How is being against gay marriage hateful? Obama held that view (which was actually more "hateful" than Dick Cheney's) until 2 years ago. :lol:
Or do you think anyone who disagrees is hateful?

Face it you guys will stop at nothing to justify your own views, and dismiss those of others as being hateful and irrational as it suits you-thats all.
Click to expand...

The bakeries, which were targeted because the owners and/or majority of the staff is gay, felt it was hateful. Saying "gay marriage is wrong" can easily be seen as hateful, especially if it is being placed on a cake that is being eaten at a "pro-traditional marriage" event/celebration.

And who cares if Obama once held that view. Do you think that all same sex marriage/gay rights supporters love Obama and completely support him, voted for him in the Presidential elections simply because he currently supports same sex marriage?
 
vesper said:
Still playing the race card when the gay card isn't working?
Everyone has the right to sue if they find they have been discriminated against. Everyone is suing everyone. First we had the gay marriage activists suing small business owners over their religious convictions. Now we have activists suing gay bakers for denying them an anti-gay cake. We have businesses having to go all the way to the Supremes to keep from having their religious freedoms violated due to Obamacare. There are folks in the medical field suing for the right to not have to perform abortions in hospitals and clinics because it is against their religious conscience. There's a lot of folks engaged in legal battles over religious freedom or any violation to the First Amendment.
Click to expand...


Its not the "race card". Why do you think its ok for the white restaurant owner to refuse to serve blacks because he thinks they are "icky".

What you are failing to recognize is that bigotry in the name of religion is still bigotry. You can't use your religion as a shield to have free reign to discriminate against people you don't like. It didn't work for the white bigots in the 50's and 60's and it won't work for the right-wingnuts in 2015. This country recognizes everyone's right to practice their religion. However, that does not mean that you can manipulate your religion to write your own rules about who you want to discriminate against and who you don't.
 
Blemonds said:
And that's the goal, to force Christian merchants out of the marketplace
Click to expand...

LOL!!

Please prove this ridiculous assertion. No one cares if Christians own businesses. What people do care about is if anyone, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Mormon, Hindu, atheist, whoever tries to justify discrimination in their open-to-the-public business with "my beliefs are that this type of person is wrong, sinning, etc.".
 
roguenuke said:
Prove it. You can't. The guy was denied service for the content of the cake. He could have told them all day "I don't approve of gay marriage", then ordered a cookie or cake that had nothing written on it or "happy birthday" or been set up for him to write on it. Instead, he requested a cake that they did not want to make, a cake with writing on it that they deemed "offensive", hateful. There is no protection there for someone to be given a service the person doesn't offer. If they had refused to sell him a cake at all, then he would possibly have a case, depending on how they explained their refusal. However, they didn't do that. And his request is absolutely not the same as someone asking for a cake that the baker does make and being refused because of a protected classification.
Click to expand...

Some people just hung up or said no. He could easily make another video to jump through your hoops and a similar outcome would be found.

Perhaps there's an atheist out there trolling gay bakeries right now saying he wants a wedding cake that says gay marriage is wrong. He didn't choose to be straight, so it will no doubt be a travesty of justice that you will line up behind-you know, to be consistent.
 
Paperview said:
Oh brother.

That's a pretty stupid post.

Let me guess, you read that dumb pjmedia piece.
Click to expand...
I don't know what a pjmedia is, but it doesn't change the fact that calls for boycotts are discrimination
 
roguenuke said:
Are you talking about the real cases, at least two in different states, where the same sex couples went to really buy a cake for their same sex marriage/celebration of their marriage, and were denied service once the bakers found out they were a same sex couple wanting a wedding cake?

Oregon ruling really takes the cake -- Christian bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple | Fox News

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Colorado Bakery, Agrees To 'Dog Wedding' Cake Despite Turning Away Gays

No one was being "set up" here. They didn't have to be. The owners openly admitted that not only did they deny service to these couples, at least one of them, if not both, have denied service to same sex couples prior to these incidents. One of the shops closed its storefront business, and now works from home, taking orders online. The other claims to not sell wedding cakes anymore, but still advertises that he does on his website. And there are many comments on Yelp that show that he did in fact discriminate against other couples before this one stood up for themselves and reported him/sued him.
Click to expand...

No, I was not aware that this was happening. I just haven't been following this, because I believe everyone has the right to marry or otherwise be happy with anyone they wish, since it's really none of my business in the first place. As long as they are good neighbors, what possible difference could it make to anyone who they marry? It's their life.
 
disneydude said:
Its not the "race card". Why do you think its ok for the white restaurant owner to refuse to serve blacks because he thinks they are "icky".

What you are failing to recognize is that bigotry in the name of religion is still bigotry. You can't use your religion as a shield to have free reign to discriminate against people you don't like. It didn't work for the white bigots in the 50's and 60's and it won't work for the right-wingnuts in 2015. This country recognizes everyone's right to practice their religion. However, that does not mean that you can manipulate your religion to write your own rules about who you want to discriminate against and who you don't.
Click to expand...
And you can't use your bigoted views against religion to violate another man's rights over another. Either we all have rights or we have none.
 
roguenuke said:
There is legal discrimination, and even "justified" discrimination, and then there is illegal discrimination and/or unjustified discrimination.
Click to expand...
I see. If it's discrimination that supports one person's agenda, it's good, but when it goes against that person's agenda, it's bad. You gotta love that logic
 
roguenuke said:
The bakeries, which were targeted because the owners and/or majority of the staff is gay, felt it was hateful. Saying "gay marriage is wrong" can easily be seen as hateful, especially if it is being placed on a cake that is being eaten at a "pro-traditional marriage" event/celebration.

And who cares if Obama once held that view. Do you think that all same sex marriage/gay rights supporters love Obama and completely support him, voted for him in the Presidential elections simply because he currently supports same sex marriage?
Click to expand...

If I say unsafe sex or drunk driving is wrong, am I being hateful? What you are saying is that you dont want to be offended, and that if theres any chance it can be offensive it should be labeled as hateful. Sorry, Ive seen plenty of lefty protests that had the specific intent of being offensive.

Im not religious, but there are now day spa's that provide abortions-and I find that abhorrent. Since thats the case, you clearly must be against it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom